The MRM and specifically AVfM doesn’t need nor want so-called Men’s Rights advocates like Nolan. Those who deem it necessary to use individuals like him as a poster child of the men (and women) within the Men’s Human Rights Movement need to take notice: Nolan is NOT a Men’s Rights Activist. Actually, now that I think about it, I think Nolan would better fit within the feminist ranks. Right up there with the likes of Dworkin, Steinem, Marcotte and the rest of those hate-mongers.

The most pervasive element of western civilization today is its hatred of men and all things male. There is a particularly strong hatred of fathers and husbands. … It is only natural and normal that some men decide to take matters into their own hands at all the hatred spewed at them and their marginalization.

It is a testament to men, and an exposure of lies perpetrated against them by gender ideologues that we have come this last half century without blood in the streets. It has always been in men’s nature to take care of others better than themselves, and they have proven that with their silence in the face of so many constant abuses. Betting on that silence to continue when men are hungry is foolish. … anyone, even men, if backed into a corner and kicked long enough and hard enough, will come out swinging.

These “past injustices” that women claim are bogus and do not stand the test of any scrutiny at all. The adult female human being has been the most pampered and protected animal to ever live on the face of the planet … [W]omen have, for millenia, suffered no consequences for attacking men and lying pathologically about men. No consequences at all. Yours is the first generation of young men who might choose to demonstrate to women that there are consequences for waging a WAR OF AGGRESSION on men.

The day I see one of these absolutely incredulous excuses for a judge dragged out of his courtroom into the street, beaten mercilessly, doused with gasoline and set afire by a father who just won’t take another moment of injustice, I will be the first to put on the pages of this website that what happened was a minor tragedy that pales by far in comparison to the systematic brutality and thuggery inflicted daily on American fathers by those courts and their police henchmen. It would not even so much be a tragedy as the chickens coming home to roost.

Comments

So in Sovereign Citizen news, a woman in Idaho beat the crap out of a Jewish woman who wouldn’t convert to Christianity. At her trial she said that she was a “sworn-in deputy” and a few other things that smell like sovereign citizen nonsense to me. Idaho is a hotbed of it, anyway.

It’s as though he believes that if a man’s rights don’t override and supersede any rights a girl or woman might have, then that man’s rights don’t really exist. He obviously has no respect for his own gender, since he can only see masculinity through the prism of its relationship to the Female gender.

Not sure if anyone brought this up before, but the name change, unusual punctuation, copyright symbol, and even the stress on large payments in gold for the use of this guy’s name are often indicative of someone with sovereign citizens views.

I’m impressed that other countries are concerned about men like him and actually DO something about it – even just making sure he has no physical access to his ex sounds like heroism to me.

I hope he doesn’t make his way to the US. Our government might as well hand him a gun at the border. Seriously, the police/laws here do not care about women’s lives. They care more about protecting the “rights” of men like this to own guns, spread hate, and threaten women. The only time they care is after a woman is dead.

Not sure if anyone brought this up before, but the name change, unusual punctuation, copyright symbol, and even the stress on large payments in gold for the use of this guy’s name are often indicative of someone with sovereign citizens views.

Hi and welcome! Click on the scented candle in the right sidebar for your welcome package. And awesome nym, by the way!

Actually he’s [probasbly more of a “Freeman of the Land” than a Sovereign Citizen, but there are all sorts of rabbit holes that people go down in hopes of claiming that laws don’t apply to them. There is a whole group of people who claim that federal law doesn’t exists in the states of the Confederacy, because they were not properly readmitted to the Union after the Civil War. There’s another group that claims that African-Americans cannot be “natural-born citizens” — and therefore cannot be President — because they were made citizens by the 14th amendment after the Civil War. Another group — the Thirteenthers believe that there was an original 13th Amendment that was passed but somehow left out of most versions of the Constitution — but can be found in a few old printed copies. (This amendment failed in the Congress by one vote several times. It was aimed at thwarting attempts by European states to gain influence in the infant US.) It provided that any US citizen that received a title or a gift from a foreign state without the permission of Congress would lose their citizenship. Thirteenthers argue that since lawyers use the title “Esq.”, upon being admitted to the bar they should automatically lose their citizenship and their right to hold public office. They argue, in effect, that the amendment was aimed at lawyers rather than foreign influence.

There is a real issue here, which is that we are not offered the option of agreeing or refusing to be bound by the laws. The issue becomes particularly meaningful when, for example, a nominally democratic country drafts young men to risk their lives in war although they have never had a voice in selecting the officials who made the decision to go to war. However, most of the people who raise the issue merely want to avoid taxes or other laws they don’t want to obey. It seems clear that for a society to function there must be a set of rules that are enforced, but a wise society will not interfere in private behavior unless there is compelling reason to do so. Order and liberty need to be balanced. A good example of this IMO is laws criminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults. I believe that in such a case the burden is on society to PROVE that such acts cause real, observable harm to society that exceeds the harm done to the liberty of the individuals involved — not just that some people don’t like the idea of same-sex sex relations. (I have not seen anything that approaches such proof.)

What it comes down to is the question of whether there really is a “social contract” if one is not allowed to refuse to sign. You could write a whole shelf of books on it, because at bottom it raises the question of the legitimacy of society and it rules.

GOM – that reminds me of a history book I’m reading. It’s about the end of the Stuart dynasty in Great Britain. The legal wrangle over what the defalcation of James II meant, constitutionally speaking, as the parliamentary commission took certain things as axiomatic that were (from our perspective) entirely contingent. Just as we today (at least here in USA) believe quite sincerely that being born here means you have entered into an obligatory legal relationship with an imaginary entity. This we call Citizenship. Both sides have specified rights and responsibilities, but Government has the monopoly on legal use of violence. In fact, you could define Government as the portion of society that has that monopoly.

Nolan’s poor excuse for a blog has further degenerated into a plug fest for dodgy online money making scams. The dude is desperate now he’s about two decades out of date in his profession due to his obsessive pseudo MRA activities …

Being an Australian citizen, Nolan can return to Australia but it resisting it to his last breath because there is a raft of arrest warrants out for a litany of charges including making threats to kill, extortion, using a carriage service to intimidate, stalk or harrass and for breaching Section 121 of the Australian Family Law Act.

He was jailed in Germany for being an Asshat in Stuttgart airport a few years back trying to get through with a dodgy World Passport. After representing himself in court, he copped a whopping EU20,000 fine, for which he was eventually banged up for 19 days. Somehow he remains in Germany, despite overstaying his visitor’s visa and being denied EEC citizenship due to his undesirable character.

If ever he leaves Germany, he won’t be allowed back, and it seems he is not welcome anywhere else. He faces eventual deportation to Australia, at best …

He will also never again set foot in Ireland due to arrest warrants for criminal offences, including threats to kill politicians and their families.

The first and (fortunately) only time I encountered an MRA, I found his views hateful and disturbing. But the more one reads about this stuff, the worse it gets. One thing that’s most horrendous about MRA and related crap is that it starts off hideous, and only goes downhill from there. The (probably unlikely) prospect of MRA ideology ever becoming even vaguely ‘mainstream’ terrifies me. I think that the vast majority of people will not fall for it.

But the fact people even think these things is terrible. The fact that they say them out loud is just mindblowing. And the fact that they present ‘feminism’ as being a ‘war on men’ (sic) just heaps insult on millennia of injustice against women. Have they no shame?

I.e. * ‘the fact MRAs even think these things.’ Ditto ‘MRAs present feminism.’ When one considers the MRAs are the far end of a very, very long spectrum, stretching from painful and heedless microaggressions and flippancy (which are also bad) through to the MRA themselves, it shows how vast things the hatred and inequality and oppression toward woman are.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.